According to the following article, which is only available in Spanish for the moment, AA/BA/IB are preparing a plan for the next 5 years, that will be announced in 2013, where new routes are being considered. The statement has been made by the Vice-President of Strategic Alliances of Iberia.

Apart from that, he specifically said that they are weighting up DFW-BCN, operated by AA, and using Vueling for connections beyond BCN. The article praises DFW as a connecting point, and also contains some mistakes, like the statement that AA has orders for "100 777-3000" (sic), 42 firm and 58 options. Like this order is specifically quoted by AA's Commercial Manager in Spain, maybe the route is being considered but only for the 789.

It surprises me that DFW-BCN is considered before ORD-BCN. I also wonder if another route from MAD could be viable, now that all 5 cornerstones are operated. The only one I can think about is trying again MAD-IAD.

Regarding other European-North American flights that could be announced in 2013, there's of course the long overdue European expansion by AA (ex JFK, ORD and MIA), as well as maybe other flights such as LHR-DTW, PIT or BDL, but that are only some hypothesis.

So my takeaway here is that Vueling has codeshare agreements with Iberia, but not American; however, thanks to metal neutrality, Vueling would be able to coordinate agreements with a DFWBCN flight operated by AA. Or is that a complete stretch?

Also, agreed that the fleet information presented in this article is completely inaccurate. It says that AA has an order of 100 Boeing 777-300 (corrected from the 3000s) with 42 confirmed orders and options for 58 more. The only numerical data on AA's fleet (both in-service and on-order) that coordinate with those numerals actually have to do with the 767 and 787 fleets, as far as I know...AA has 58 767s in operation and 42 788s on order...not sure where this author's data came from?

It goes further to mention that Dallas is the third most sought-after business destination in the US (?!). It also touts terminal D and AA's market share at DFW at 85%.

As cool as it would be to see AA fly DFWBCN, I'm somewhat skeptical on that one.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 2):Also, agreed that the fleet information presented in this article is completely inaccurate. It says that AA has an order of 100 Boeing 777-300 (corrected from the 3000s) with 42 confirmed orders and options for 58 more. The only numerical data on AA's fleet (both in-service and on-order) that coordinate with those numerals actually have to do with the 767 and 787 fleets, as far as I know...AA has 58 767s in operation and 42 788s on order...not sure where this author's data came from?

The numbers were correct (42 orders and 58 options), but for the 789, not the 77W.

I'm also skeptical: Latin American connections are handled via MAD and MIA, while the most important US markets (specially in the West Coast) can be flown via JFK with AA. If they wanted a connection to a bigger hub, then I would guess they would try ORD before DFW. Apart from that, I would add a second JFKBCN flight before this one, because AA isn't the biggest American airline in BCN (DL is). Anyway, we'll have to wait till next year to know what happens to these plans.

Quoting realsim (Thread starter):Regarding other European-North American flights that could be announced in 2013, there's of course the long overdue European expansion by AA (ex JFK, ORD and MIA), as well as maybe other flights such as LHR-DTW, PIT or BDL, but that are only some hypothesis.

What new LHR-USA routes have been rumored or are being considered?
I could see the return of DTW-LHR. Could also see new routes PDX-LHR, FLL-LGW.

Quoting realsim (Reply 3):I'm also skeptical: Latin American connections are handled via MAD and MIA, while the most important US markets (specially in the West Coast) can be flown via JFK with AA. If they wanted a connection to a bigger hub, then I would guess they would try ORD before DFW. Apart from that, I would add a second JFKBCN flight before this one, because AA isn't the biggest American airline in BCN (DL is). Anyway, we'll have to wait till next year to know what happens to these plans.

Did the article mention Latin American connections as a reason for launching DFWBCN? I'm not quite sure it did.

Also, AA's ORD hub is NOT bigger than DFW. Nor is AA's JFK hub better for connections to the west coast.

I'm also fairly sure AA flew JFKBCN 2X for a brief period of time.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 4):What new LHR-USA routes have been rumored or are being considered?
I could see the return of DTW-LHR. Could also see new routes PDX-LHR, FLL-LGW.

I don't see PDX-LHR happening. DL can't even support PDXAMS year round and that is the only European connection PDX has.

AA pulled the plug on its LGW operations years ago. It would be foolish for them to recommence operations there, splitting costs between two airports in an overseas location, for the sake of one daily leisure route to a low-yielding, leisure-oriented city like FLL. Until the day comes when AA changes its business model to resemble the likes of Zoom Airlines, Thomas Cook or Sun Country, FLLLGW will never happen.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 5):I don't see PDX-LHR happening. DL can't even support PDXAMS year round and that is the only European connection PDX has.

PDXAMS has been upgauged to a daily A333 for summer, from A332 last year. The flight drops to 5x weekly during winter. Being that LHR is PDX's largest international O/D route without a nonstop, PDX could be a potential market for BA. PDX has seen quite a bit of growth this year.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 5):AA pulled the plug on its LGW operations years ago. It would be foolish for them to recommence operations there, splitting costs between two airports in an overseas location, for the sake of one daily leisure route to a low-yielding, leisure-oriented city like FLL. Until the day comes when AA changes its business model to resemble the likes of Zoom Airlines, Thomas Cook or Sun Country, FLLLGW will never happen.

Im pretty sure he meant BA using the leisure 767's to FLL. It could be a good way to funnel leisure passengers.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 6):PDXAMS has been upgauged to a daily A333 for summer, from A332 last year. The flight drops to 5x weekly during winter. Being that LHR is PDX's largest international O/D route without a nonstop, PDX could be a potential market for BA. PDX has seen quite a bit of growth this year.

Growth at PDX has been primarily domestic, and to Hawaii/leisure destinations, not intercontinental.

LH struggled to support PDX alongside the DL (then Northwest) flight to AMS, especially given that LH serves YVR, SEA, DEN and SFO all within the same neighborhood. The situation for BA will be no different. Also challenging for BA will be the lack of codeshare agreement with AS, which helps out the DL flight to AMS (alongside subsidies) with extra feed.

Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 8):Im pretty sure he meant BA using the leisure 767's to FLL. It could be a good way to funnel leisure passengers.

I see the logic there, but still don't buy it. Europeans headed to South Florida wish to visit Miami, not FLL, and obviously prefer to fly directly into MIA. On paper it seems like a good idea, but if it were achievable, I feel like the likes of VS or AF might have attempted it already into LGW or ORY. Instead, the only transatlantic carrier flying into FLL is Condor.

Why would AA do that??? None of those three airports face slot restrictions, and AA runs a daily 777 to MAD in the summer season. It has been a huge success story.

Whereas MAD is a OneWorld hub, and it makes sense to connect it to DFW, the largest OneWorld hub in the Americas, BCN is NOT a OneWorld hub, and is primarily a leisure/tourism-oriented city in Southern Europe. I really don't see how that fits into any business needs for DFW.

AA announced a DFW-BCN route once before, WAY back in 1989. It was planned to begin in spring 1990, but with the purchase of TWA's Heathrow routes and Eastern's Latin American routes around that time, they never actually started it.

Both DFW-BCN and ORD-HEL were announced at the same time in 1989, but neither were started. Last year AA finally started ORD-HEL so it would be pretty cool if they ended up starting DFW-BCN too.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 11):Growth at PDX has been primarily domestic, and to Hawaii/leisure destinations, not intercontinental.

LH struggled to support PDX alongside the DL (then Northwest) flight to AMS, especially given that LH serves YVR, SEA, DEN and SFO all within the same neighborhood. The situation for BA will be no different. Also challenging for BA will be the lack of codeshare agreement with AS, which helps out the DL flight to AMS (alongside subsidies) with extra feed.

Economically, it was probably the worst time to have BOTH AMS and FRA from PDX around the global downturn. But before the downturn, LH and NW at PDX were coexisting. As well as PDX and SEA both with LH. Things are rebounding in PDX and maybe its time for another go for PDX to have an additional Europe flight. I think BAPDX-LHR would perform better than LHPDX-FRA.

As much as I would love to see DFW-BCN, I think ORD-GRU would happen before this (and I don't see that happening). AA will expand to Europe in the next few years if/when the economy recovers, but it would more likely be out of JFK, MIA,or ORD. DFW does not have the best locatoin to be a European hub (hence only flights to LHR, FRA, CDG, MAD, and AMS - which is seasonal). I could see IB taking over DFW-MAD with a 340 and AA flying ORD-MAD with a 763.

As I am one of the sites largest DFW biggest boosters, at first it's exciting to hear a new route being considered for your home airport. However, taking a step back I have to agree, DFWBCN is not a good idea. Even if AA/IAG was considering another route from DFW to Europe, I'm not sure BCN would be the one to go for.

The best solution (to me) is not to start a new route from DFW, but rather to increase the seat count on DFWMAD. Unlike DFWBCN, DFWMAD is a decent sized local market and the hub in MAD is much bigger.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 14):Economically, it was probably the worst time to have BOTH AMS and FRA from PDX around the global downturn. But before the downturn, LH and NW at PDX were coexisting. As well as PDX and SEA both with LH. Things are rebounding in PDX and maybe its time for another go for PDX to have an additional Europe flight. I think BAPDX-LHR would perform better than LHPDX-FRA.

The two flights coexisted for roughly a little over a year before LH decided to can the flight. That really isn't all that long. Granted, the meltdown pretty much occurred shortly after NW launched PDXAMS, but it took government incentives for PDX to lure LH back in 2003, and they were given 6 years for the market to develop. If there was still potential, LH could have considered operating PDX on a seasonal basis, but they chose not to.

Thanks for the clarification. I was actually using the same source as you and when I came across this paragraph:

"The support we have received from the Port of Portland, the city and, of course, our customers, has made our flights to Tokyo and Amsterdam successful," said Jim Cron, Delta senior vice president for global sales and distribution. "We look forward to continue contributing to the economic development of the city."

...I was thrown off. But indeed after doing further searching I did not see any other sources confirming that PDXAMS was subsidized. The ambiguous wording threw me off. My apologies.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 4):What new LHR-USA routes have been rumored or are being considered?

I highly doubt any new LHR-USA flights will be added by carrier at the moment, because of the limited amounts of LHR easily available. The only possible thing I could see is AA dropping the RDU-LHR flight, but I highly doubt it because I believe they have some sort of contract with a drug company in RDU.

I think PDX-LHR could be possible in the next few years. LH did very well until NW started AMS and LH did SEA-FRA. Those factors, coupled with a bad regional economy, hurt LH (by the way, they stillhad very good LF when they terminated PDX). I think the advantage BA would have is London would carry more O & D than FRA (and way more than AMS), they would have BA's network in LHR, and they have the code-share with Alaska at PDX. If PDX continues to grow, I could see both flights co-existing profitably.

I don't think we'll see much expansion to the EU by AA anytime in the foreseeable future. FRA is pretty much a weak link and at this point, DFW-FRA does pretty good with a 763ER?
All of these additional German destinations you're suggesting would be best served by AB via BER or DUS now that they are a part of OW.LAX-CDG will not happen again.
Who is EC? I've been trying hard to think who this is to switch these routes over too, but it sounds like by the suggestion you're making, they would be purely leisure and we all know what that does to the yields.

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 14):Economically, it was probably the worst time to have BOTH AMS and FRA from PDX around the global downturn. But before the downturn, LH and NW at PDX were coexisting. As well as PDX and SEA both with LH. Things are rebounding in PDX and maybe its time for another go for PDX to have an additional Europe flight. I think BAPDX-LHR would perform better than LHPDX-FRA.

BA already serves the Pacific Northwest well with service to SEA & YVR. I don't see this happening unless a significant number of slots open @ LHR. If anything, I can see DL adding PDX-CDG with a 76W. BUT that's only if the demand increases a great deal on PDX-AMS (not all leisure) and the economy improves markedly over the next couple of years.

The Barcelona metropolitan area is one of the largest in the EU with over 4 million people. In a better economy, AA and OW could turn this into a successful focus city. Obviously, JFK has limited connection opportunities for travelers out of BCN, and this seasonal route seems to be consistent with AA's feabile attempt at handling its Trans-Atlantic routes outside of LHR. Perhaps with better planes and service, it could regain some of its luster here. One can only hope.

I see BCN distinctly from MAD. People from the BCN area generally despise MAD for historical reasons, and would rather fly locally. So there is a case for AA starting a second BCN route. Its choices are ORD or DFW, and given ORD's closer proximityto JFK, DFW makes more sense here.

Of course, once the guys from U.S. Airways take over, one would need to add PHL into the mix. Note that this route is handled on a modern A330 aircraft.

Quoting AAplat4life (Reply 23):I see BCN distinctly from MAD. People from the BCN area generally despise MAD for historical reasons, and would rather fly locally. So there is a case for AA starting a second BCN route. Its choices are ORD or DFW, and given ORD's closer proximityto JFK, DFW makes more sense here.

AA/IB should fly to 3 American cities, JFK and MIA for obvious reasons and Chicago for connections. DFW is too far west to be effective hub for connections to most of the USA.

25 SCL767
: However there is demand for non-stop flights between certain South American cities and BCN. AV operates BOG-BCN, AR operates EZE-BCN and both IB and